Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

PolygamousRanchKid writes "Pope Francis overhauled the laws that govern the Vatican City State on Thursday, criminalizing leaks of Vatican information and specifically listing sexual violence, prostitution and possession of child pornography as crimes against children that can be punished by up to 12 years in prison. But without the leaks, how would we find out about those crimes against children? Many of the new provisions were necessary to bring the city state's legal system up to date after the Holy See signed international treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Others were necessary to comply with international norms to fight money-laundering, part of the Vatican's push toward financial transparency. One new crime stands out, though, as an obvious response to the leaks of papal documents last year that represented one of the gravest Vatican security breaches in recent times. Paolo Gabriele, the butler for then-Pope Benedict XVI, was tried and convicted by a Vatican court of stealing Benedict's personal papers and giving them to an Italian journalist, Gianluigi Nuzzi. Using the documents, Nuzzi published a blockbuster book on the petty turf wars, bureaucratic dysfunction and allegations of corruption and homosexual liaisons that afflict the highest levels of Catholic Church governance. Gabriele, who said he wanted to expose the 'evil and corruption' that plagued the Holy See, was convicted of aggravated theft and sentenced to 18 months in the Vatican's police barracks."

Because it was both professional and efficient, the Spanish Inquisition kept very good records.

These documents are a goldmine for modern historians who have plunged greedily into them. Thus far, the fruits of that research have made one thing abundantly clear – the myth of the Spanish Inquisition has nothing at all to do with the real thing. . . .

In 1483 Ferdinand appointed Tomás de Torquemada as inquistor-general for most of Spain. It was Torquemada's job to establish rules of evidence and procedure for the Inquisition as well as to set up branches in major cities. Sixtus confirmed the appointment, hoping that it would bring some order to the situation.

Unfortunately, the problem only snowballed. This was a direct result of the methods employed by the early Spanish Inquisition, which strayed significantly from Church standards. When the inquisitors arrived in a particular area, they would announce an Edict of Grace. This was a 30-day period in which secret Jews could voluntarily come forward, confess their sin, and do penance. This was also a time for others with information about Christians practicing Judaism in secret to make it known to the tribunal. Those found guilty after the 30 days elapsed could be burned at the stake.

For conversos, then, the arrival of the Inquisition certainly focused the mind. They generally had plenty of enemies, any one of whom might decide to bear false witness. Or perhaps their cultural practices were sufficient for condemnation? Who knew? Most conversos, therefore, either fled or lined up to confess. Those who did neither risked an inquiry in which any kind of hearsay or evidence, no matter how old or suspicious, was acceptable.

Opposition in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church to the Spanish Inquisition only increased. Many churchmen pointed out that it was contrary to all accepted practices for heretics to be burned without instruction in the Faith. If the conversos were guilty at all, it was merely of ignorance, not willful heresy. Numerous clergy at the highest levels complained to Ferdinand. Opposition to the Spanish Inquisition also continued in Rome. Sixtus's successor, Innocent VIII, wrote twice to the king asking for greater compassion, mercy, and leniency for the conversos – but to no avail. --- more [catholiceducation.org]

I think you should somehow establish what the "myth" is, since the article despite being pro-catholic, clearly establishes a persecution and burning documentedly 2000+ persons for nothing while majority of spaniards approved the action - yet right after that the article tries to pin the bad reputation of the inquisition on protestant propaganda - and that the church's scribes records are the true word on the matter and 100% factual, honest and leaving nothing out.

what a load of crock. what's the popular myth then if not spanish officials killing people based on hearsay? that torquemada ate still beating hearts??

That is an unfortunate result of politics, and does represent a failing of the Church. Because of the politics of having to play nice with the Spanish (who were mostly allies during the Reformation), the Spanish Government got to use the Inquisition as a tool, and the Church had to shut up about it.

On the other hand, burning people for heresy, or witchcraft, was something everyone did at the time. Excommunication would have been unusual for what was common practice in the period. Our views on that practice are certainly better, but our judgement of how a reasonable person would view them in that time are anachronistic.

Also, when you talk about the Church excommunicating people for less, we need to remember that the Catholic Church in its 2000 year history has had high and low points in its power. In the 13th Century, a pope could put England or France under Interdict and bring kings to their knees. In the 15th Century, after the start of the Reformation, not so much. The Church was no longer universal and needed kings as allies, and those allies demanded concessions.

That said, many of the more baroque excesses attributed to the Inquisition were indeed mostly propaganda. The thing to consider is that the Inquisition itself was set up to at least bring some sort of due process to what might otherwise be settled by virulently anti-Jewish or anti-"heretic" mobs (frequently encouraged by the governments). To someone today, that seems like putting a safety placard on a torture device, but we need to remember that we didn't just spring all enlightened from the ground. The progress for human rights today springs from the same sources that would have tried to moderate religious violence though due process in a more brutal time. That this impulse was not sufficient to step in front of these abuses is unfortunate, but we've hardly stopped making compromises with certain ideals, even today.

So why wasn't the King of Spain threatened with excommunication for this grievous abuse of power in the name of the Church? Why didn't the Church just nip that in the bud and refuse his requests for an Inquisition. Because his military support was necessary to keep Rome from being overrun by the Ottomans. They also had centuries to reverse that mistake and yet the Inquisition lingered until the mid-19th century.

Just because the Spanish Inquisition was run by the King of Spain doesn't absolve the Roman Catholic Church of its role in creating, legitimizing, and maintaining that odious organization.

Also, wouldn't you think that an actual Catholic education service would have better things to do than act as apologists for tyranny and terrible mistakes of the past?

The Kings of Spain were threatened with excommunication on multiple occasions.

There was a huge tussle between the various catholic monarchs of Europe, including the English, French and Spanish Kings and the Holy Roman Emperor over who should decide things in the Catholic Church. There was a power grab at the time, and much of the particular viciousness of the Spanish Inquisition can be attributed to the pride, paranoia and desire for independence of the Spanish King.

Parallels can perhaps be drawn with the USA where the scale of slaughter of the native populations also increased rapidly with independence.
At one point, for example, even the Primate (head bishop) of Spain, the Archbishop of Toledo, fell out with Philip the II (King of Spain) and was arrested by the Spanish Inquisition in 1558. He was accused of heresy mainly on the basis of his book (Commentary on the Christian Catechism). However, this same book had been presented to and approved by the (counter-reformation / anti-Protestant) Council of Trent to which he had been the official Spanish envoy... The pope sent an ambassador ("nuncio extraordinary") with powers of excommunication for everyone involved and orders to physically extract the Archbishop. This didn't work. The king demanded a trial in Spain so the pope sent four bishops as the judges (each of whom later became popes themselves), but they were not accepted. The Spanish Inquisition were desperate for the bishop of Toledo to die, and he only survived because he was accompanied night and day by at least two members of his loyal staff (i.e different ones went at different times, on rotation).

After 7 years, the pope managed to extricate him following more threats, this time to excommunicate the whole of Spain. His trial was reconvened in Rome with the pope expecting a quick exoneration. However, important papers kept getting lost in Spain. Eventually Philip outlasted the trial, with the suspicious death of Pope Paul IV. There is no proof as such that the Spaniards killed the pope only conjecture: i.e. letters have been found in the historical archives in Valladolid, Spain explaining the great dishonour the pope had brought upon the Spanish Inquisition and how convenient it would be for the pope to die, etc...

Unfortunately for the Spanish Inquisition, the next pope lost patience and the Spanish Primate won his case.

The Kings of Spain were threatened with excommunication on multiple occasions.

But were those threats conditioned on the ending of the Spanish Inquisition or mere power plays? You give an example of a power play and it ended with the next pope.

Dubious justice but still better than Guantanamo...

Yea right. Guantanamo is still a few centuries shy of the Spanish Inquisition and fundamentally, it's a POW camp. Indefinite imprisonment legally goes with that territory. The war which it's associated with is some nebulous affair that might drag on for generations or it might be ended in a legal sense in a few years. I think the Guantanamo Bay prison is unjust, but it's not at the level of the Spanish Inquisition.

There's also the matter of number of prisoners and punishments meted out. Current number of prisoners in Guantanamo is less than two hundred. They have yet to execute any prisoners (though apparently the wheels are turning [cbsnews.com]) while the Spanish Inquisition executed people from its founding all the way through to 1826 [wikipedia.org].

The concept greatly predates the Magna Carta. For example, the first known code of laws, the Code of Hammurabi addresses abuse of power in the first paragraph [sacred-texts.com] of its preamble:

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

Abuse of power is not a recent concept, but a fundamental concept driving the very formation of law to the point that it is one of the three justifications given in the very first known written system of law.

If somehow we could hop in a time machine and go back to the first stories uttered by men, I think we would find that the idea of abuse of power is that old.

And for the record, according to catholic teaching, Polosi, Biden and the like are responsible for upholding, encouraging and creating policies that
are responsible for many millions more deaths then the inquisition ever was, because they support legalized abortion, which to date has killed 75million people in this country alone since the 70's, So they certainly deserve excommunication more than the king of Spain could.

How many of those deaths are they personally responsible for? I could similarly state that the kings of Spain supported tyranny, which probably has a body count well north of a billion deaths these days.

Kind of a tangent, but fwiw the Vatican no longer handles its own prosecutions or imprisonments. Under the Lateran Treaty of 1929 [aloha.net], the Vatican has autonomy in policing, but prosecution is handled by the Vatican handing the prisoner over to the Italian court system and requesting them to be prosecuted:

At the request of the Holy See, or by its delegate who may be appointed in single cases or permanently, Italy shall provide within her for the punishment of offences committed within the Vatican City, save and except when the author of the offence shall have taken refuge in Italian territory, in which event he shall immediately be proceeded against according to the provisions of the Italian laws.

"But without the leaks, how would we find out about those crimes against children?" -- these are not relevant. Unless you believe that someone would record child abuse on classified official documents.

Unless you believe that someone would record child abuse on classified official documents.

I wouldn't bet against it ever happening, but the more likely problem is people reporting abuse internally and the people who are supposed to be responsible for dealing with it doing nothing about it. That's something that leaking official documents could bring to light.

2.6 Right to ConfidentialityAll necessary measures shall be taken to protect the privacy and identity of child victims to ensure the safety and security of the victim and his or her family. The name, address and all other information that could lead to the identification of the child victim or his or her family members shall not be revealed to the public or media. Exceptions may be made in circumstances such as to facilitate the tracing of family members or otherwise secure the well-being and protection of the child, with the informed consent of the child. Information about a child victim that could endanger the child or the child’s family members shall not be disclosed in any case.20

The bulk of the Vatican's penal code is based on the 1889 Italian code. Many of the new provisions were necessary to bring the city state's legal system up to date after the Holy See signed international treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

There's a huge difference between protecting the identity and privacy of a child and willfully lying and hiding information about your priests diddling said children. Oh and when those abused children who did speak out later in life they were repeatedly called liars by the church hierarchy until being forced to admit otherwise.

Unless you believe that someone would record child abuse on classified official documents.

Actually, this is what did happen in the US. The church kept records of known child abusing priests, and did not report them to the police. The priests were simply moved to new locations, instead. This is why victims were later able to sue the church diocese, instead of just the priest. The church was guilty of hiding the crimes of the priests.

Unless you believe that someone would record child abuse on classified official documents.

Actually, this is what did happen in the US. The church kept records of known child abusing priests, and did not report them to the police. The priests were simply moved to new locations, instead. This is why victims were later able to sue the church diocese, instead of just the priest. The church was guilty of hiding the crimes of the priests.

Hmm, are you sure it requires that? I thought it was fairly widespread common law thing that employers could be sued for things their employees did whilst doing their job, even if there was nothing the employer could have known or done about it. (Which is something it can occasionally be rather important to know, especially if you're an employer). Of course, hiding it might make the church guilty of a crime, too.

Presumably lawyers have lots of fun making up puns on vicarious liability, too. Except that vica

Actually, this is what did happen in the US. The church kept records of known child abusing priests, and did not report them to the police. The priests were simply moved to new locations, instead. This is why victims were later able to sue the church diocese, instead of just the priest. The church was guilty of hiding the crimes of the priests.

The same thing happened in the United Kingdom, Italy, Ireland, Germany, and a whole host of other countries. This is not a US problem, it's a world problem. The timing of the last pope stepping down was quite interesting...a week after an HBO documentary "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God" was released for general consumption, linking both the current Pope and his soon-to-be-sainted predecisor directly to the pedophile coverups and worse. In fact, Pope John-Paul II covered for his good pedophile friend up until he died and passed the mantle on to Ratzinger. I wonder if they'll make St. Pedo, I mean John-Paul II, the patron saint of children and knock the other guy aside?

One thing is sure, mothers will still be carting their kids off to the churches, never mind the danger to their offspring. That, more than anything, illustrates the power of indoctrination and denial.

Actually, this is what did happen in the US. The church kept records of known child abusing priests, and did not report them to the police. The priests were simply moved to new locations, instead. This is why victims were later able to sue the church diocese, instead of just the priest. The church was guilty of hiding the crimes of the priests.

The same thing happened in the United Kingdom, Italy, Ireland, Germany, and a whole host of other countries. This is not a US problem, it's a world problem. The timing of the last pope stepping down was quite interesting...a week after an HBO documentary "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God" was released for general consumption, linking both the current Pope and his soon-to-be-sainted predecisor directly to the pedophile coverups and worse. In fact, Pope John-Paul II covered for his good pedophile friend up until he died and passed the mantle on to Ratzinger. I wonder if they'll make St. Pedo, I mean John-Paul II, the patron saint of children and knock the other guy aside?

One thing is sure, mothers will still be carting their kids off to the churches, never mind the danger to their offspring. That, more than anything, illustrates the power of indoctrination and denial.

It's also a problem in public schools, boy scouts, universities and just about every church and institution. It's not specific to the catholic church. Pope John Paul II didn't cover for the priests, he actually instructed the US bishops to quit using canon law (church law) as a defense for their actions and to cooperate with the civil authorities.

You also leave out of your synopsis that up until the late 1980s, pedophilia was considered curable and many of these priests that were transferred were done so after they had been pronounced cured. It turns out that they were situational abusers and only appeared safe until some stressor or trigger presented itself.

None of this excuses what happened in the catholic church, but perpetuating the myth that it is just a catholic church issue is dangerous as the sexual abuse of minors is rampant and widespread in western culture.

The Catholic church documents EVERYTHING. One of the saddest stories I've ever read was one about a man who won a court case in California and was handed the internal records of that diocese that proved it after years of being told he was lying, AND that many others in the church knew that it was true, and then finding his younger brother's name on the list of molested children as well.

It is relevant and has happened a number of times before. It might not be the only means of exposure but there have been a number of high profile cases regarding this sort of leak proving abuses have happened.

It simply needs to be recorded that he was *aware* of specific allegations and refused to act.

I'm too lazy to hunt down a citation but my understanding is that the previous pope was put in charge of the committee to handle all of the internal allegations of pedo-priestiality long before he was made pope. So, basically all of the foot-dragging and cover-ups on that front leading up to the public lawsuits is on his head. I don't think his involvement was a secret though.

FWIW, it seems like this new pope is actually pretty saintly - avoiding much of the ostentatiousness of the office, washing the feet of a poor muslim woman instead of a priest on Maundy Thursday (a triple break with tradition) and being conciliatory to atheists (immediately disclaimed by the church PR office but not by the pope himself). All of the good stuff he's been doing makes me wonder if there is more to the story of this change in the laws, I am inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt pending better reporting.

When you initiate an argument with "everyone knows that..." or by redefining the position of the group that you want to attack, it's usually a signal to the reader that what is about to follow is rhetoric and/or horseshit.

Now try that again, maybe even give an authoritative reference or two, and you'll notice that your response will sound significantly less like you've been brainwashed.

Really? Your retort is just a variation of "yo Mama". This is/. for crying out loud, use some part of your brain cell to come back with a more sardonic or rapier response. "Go kill yourself" is just...childish, like your initial comment. You went beyond hyperbole (it has always been corrupt) as if each and every monk, priest, and nun are in on the crime. No fan of the Church here, but it has done good works over the centuries, done by good caring people so how about canning the over generalizations a bit.

Not to nitpick, but even Christianity has somewhat of a "middleman" in the form of Jesus such that "Christians" feel the only way to God is through Christ. Sure, the Holy Trinity can cover up that loop hole, but many of the major beliefs (even Islam) have a middle man, living or dead that represent the way to God. Christianity talks about a personal relationship with Christ (first, not God the Father), a slight but clear difference in semantics. The Church does not declare the Pope God, but God's representative on Earth. Big difference. Catholics do not pray to the Pope, they pray to God [wikipedia.org], or to God and the supporting characters [catholicity.com] and while they do have this quirky notion that only a priest (which by extension includes the Pope) can give absolution and entrance to Heaven, many Christians [wikipedia.org] feel that if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you will burn in hell. Corrupt? How about James Bakker [wikipedia.org] or these types of churches [guardian.co.uk] that use Christianity as a drug and they are the pushers. The Catholic Church is not the only Religion with its dark side.

You opened the door to comment with the "everyone knows" and irrelevant statements like "the pope is not in the bible" without really making a valid point. So "Go kill yourself", instead of adding to your machismo, only diluted your initial weak thoughts. Perhaps you'd like to try again.

The notion of a "personal relationship with God" is largely a post-Enlightenment concept, formed in the past three or four centuries. It is not "much of the point of Christianity", but rather, a modern protestant interpretation. The point of Christianity was defined many, many centuries before that, and to claim that Catholicism—the church from which all Christian denominations were ultimately derived—is not Christian is the height of absurdity, not to mention arrogance.

Catholicism (note the spelling) is, in part, a belief that there is wisdom in the masses (lowercase, meaning the body of the church proper, not the celebration) that cannot be gleaned purely through individual contemplation. For this reason, we worship together as a community. This does not preclude the personal relationship that you speak of, but rather strengthens it.

Veneration is not worship. The difference is subtle but crucial. No Catholic sees the pope as a god. Heck, the last one (Benedict) was downright unpopular among many Catholics. To even suggest that Catholics "worship themselves" or worship the pope is an appallingly inaccurate statement, even by Slashdot standards.

Finally, it is not true that the Church has always been corrupt. It, like all organizations of that size, may never have been 100% free of corruption, but there's a big difference between pervasive corruption and a handful of rogue elements acting improperly. The recent scandals are horrifying precisely because coverups of such actions by corrupt individuals are not the usual situation.

I hope the new Pope goes in there and cleans it all up, seems the Catholic church is pretty damn corrupt all the way through at the moment

If you can seriously sit there and type that with a straight face, you are utterly unfamiliar with the history of the catholic church. As far as anyone can tell from what we know of history, it has always been corrupt. And that's without even getting into the issue of whether the pope is in the bible, which he isn't. Much of the point of Christianity is that there is no middleman, it's about a personal relationship with god. Catholocism is the precise opposite, and that's why they aren't Christians. They worship not god, but themselves, and their followers may claim to worship god, but they truly venerate the pope.

It's sad to see the results of brainwashing that begins before even leaving the womb.

I think you are confusing Catholicism with something else. The Catholic Church does not profess the need for a middleman or intermediary and never has. They also don't venerate the pope. Do you even know what that word means? It sounds like you have been reading some of those anti-catholic tracts. Maybe to undo your own brainwashing, you should actually read what the catholic church does profess.

I think you are confusing Catholicism with something else. The Catholic Church does not profess the need for a middleman or intermediary and never has.

Of course it does. The whole clergy is the middlemen. You confess to the priest, and the priest absolves you. Rubbish. The bible says that christians themselves are the priests, and that we are to confess our sins to each other.

Maybe your bible does. But, then if you must confess your sins to each other, wouldn't that make each other the middle man? I though the whole point of your argument was that you didn't need an intermediary. However, I will confess, that although I wrote a dissertation on the Catholic Church, that not being Catholic, maybe I missed something. That said, in none of the research was there anything like what you put forth, except by non-Catholic tracts that were for the purpose of discrediting the Catholic C

Yes, when you know that a child is being molested, and you cover up for the molester, there is a name for you... Accomplice.

If you have evidence that he committed some crime then present it, other wise, you should keep your mouth shut. Contrary to popular belief, the Vatican doesn't control what happens in the local dioceses. The Vatican did refuse to let US bishops resign so that they had to clean up the mess they created and it also issued instructions to cooperate with the authorities on the investigations (at the time various US bishops were hiding behind "church law"). The pope assigns bishops, he doesn't assign priests un

Its not even neccesarily the case for it to be the sort of thing that topples popes. It simply needs to be recorded that he was *aware* of specific allegations and refused to act.

It's not going to happen. Ratzinger has already been shown to have willfully relocated child molesters.

Citation please, because unless he was their bishop, he had no authority to relocate child molesters. That had to happen on the local level. What he did do, while prefect was centralize where all of the information was coming in to one place instead of the ten different offices so there was once single office responsible for it (much like the US did with its intelligence operations after 9/11).

But the only priests that Vatican assigns are those that are actually priests of the Diocese of Rome and those assi

Well he was already complicit in working for the nazi regime and has told a number of lies about his association which is always going to raise suspicion that he was more than just a passive participant but this didn't seem to matter.

No, the rumour is that it's something far more serious to the Catholic Church than something as innocent as being a Nazi, the rumour is that he might have *gasp* been a closet gay *shock horror*. Of course, only in an organisation as backwards as the Vatican could such a harmle

I wonder if there is something about the last Pope they don't want leaked. Could it be he stepped down to avoid a standing pope being shown to have committed some horrible crime against children?

There are several innocent reasons why this could be occurring now.

New bosses often like to put their stamp on an organization. The new Pope has been updating a lot of policies.The old Pope wasn't well, so he probably had a limited work schedule. There has probably been a backlog of business to catch up on.It is often easier to do multiple updates at once instead of piecemeal.

The bulk of the Vatican's penal code is based on the 1889 Italian code. Many of the new provisions were necessary to bring the city state's legal system up to date after the Holy See signed international treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Others were necessary to comply with international norms to fight money-laundering, part of the Vatican's push toward financial transparency.

One new crime stands out, though, as an obvious response to the leaks of papal documents last year that represented one of the gravest Vatican security breaches in recent times.

Now I'm suspicious. Since this information is pretty close to the beginning o

Why is libelling a Pope any more bad than libelling a priest or anyone else for that matter?

I am not sure, but I think that it has something to do with the size of the hats. The bigger the hat, the more serious the libel.Which would also explain many a gunfight in the Wild West as stemming from libel aimed at people who wore big hats.

The proverb goes "He who is without sin cast the first stone." The simple fact is there is not one adult person who follows a religion on this world who hasn't broken one of the tenants in which they profess to believe. Yet they are most often the very ones who condemn those who view their faith as superstitius nonesense the most vehemently. I do have to give this to the Catholic Church though, they have become much more maleable when confronted with facts that contradict their beliefs than the sects that spun of from it.

And most adults would agree that being deceitful, mean, vindictive, or heartless is wrong, and yet everyone has done something of the kind.

Funny how you're using the language of original sin rather than treating lapses of personal conduct as lapses. Your verb "has done" makes transgression binary. I recently watched a video about violence among children which informed me that the rate of violent acts towards others peeks somewhere around the age of two, and declines from there pretty much for the rest of

Some of us want to make money. Some of us want to get people universal health care. Some want to spread the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations. Some want our nations to have glory, and be important actors on the stage of the world. Some want international justice, some trade agreements. Some want nuns to drive old cars to set a good example.

We don't agree on all of this. But one thing we the powerful can agree on is that we can't have the public come in and mess up everything!

Let's not forget that the Gospel account clearly illustrates Jesus teaching _against_ formalised self-serving religious elites, and Jesus being executed for doing so. Can anyone think of an appropriate long word beginning with H?

Let's not forget that the Gospel account clearly illustrates Jesus teaching _against_ formalised self-serving religious elites, and Jesus being executed for doing so. Can anyone think of an appropriate long word beginning with H?

Let's not forget that it was the catholic church that compiled what we know today as the bible, so if you are going to use it against them, you should also recognize their contribution to your argument. I noticed in your sig that you are a doctor, so you can thank that same catholic church for the university system they created and all sorts of other things that we, today, take for granted.

I may not be catholic, but to deny the contribution that they made to western civilization doesn't require a long word

The Vatican is a totalitarian state guilty of numerous human rights violations. I suppose it's a small improvement that instead of just judging and locking up people, they at least try to write down their policies as "laws".

Who is the pope, in the world of 2013 ? A quaint old man with a funny hat and a funny stick in white clothes, wielding no power and a waning influence. As Inglehart put it already in 1997: the importance of religion dwindles with rising degrees of industrialization, and disappears with the transition from materialism to post-materialism. 'Nuff said.

In theory you're right, but in practice the man in the funny hat has a lot of power. His stance on sexual abstinence and contraception, to name but one thing, is taken seriously by millions of people and causes untold harm. There are millions of Catholics around the world, and the Pope's opinions politics influence them via their local Church. Dismissing him because it's 2013 is, unfortunately, not going to work.

I have no problems with people's individual beliefs. If you believe in God, Jesus, whatever, go right ahead. I will defend people's rights to believe in whatever religions they choose, and even claim that the fringe beliefs like scientology are part of what it means to live in a free society, so go right ahead. Feel free to assemble, but also feel free to discuss, argue, and debate the merits of your beliefs and not just assume someone

What is it with these "these days" crap? I keep seeing this, as if Il Vaticano had ever been anything other than a political organization designed to commit malfeasance. Read up on the Borgias' control of the Vatican, and then realize that they were only able to gain power there because it was corrupt to begin with.

That aside, the papacy clearly conflicts directly with the bible in which Jesus speaks out against gatekeepers to god, in a way which leaves little doubt that it is not and has never been godly.

What is it with these "these days" crap? I keep seeing this, as if Il Vaticano had ever been anything other than a political organization designed to commit malfeasance. Read up on the Borgias' control of the Vatican, and then realize that they were only able to gain power there because it was corrupt to begin with.

That aside, the papacy clearly conflicts directly with the bible in which Jesus speaks out against gatekeepers to god, in a way which leaves little doubt that it is not and has never been godly.

That would be your interpretation from the very bible that the catholic church put together, would it not be? Do you see the irony?

I have no problems with people's individual beliefs. If you believe in God, Jesus, whatever, go right ahead. I will defend people's rights to believe in whatever religions they choose, and even claim that the fringe beliefs like scientology are part of what it means to live in a free society, so go right ahead. Feel free to assemble, but also feel free to discuss, argue, and debate the merits of your beliefs and not just assume someone else has all the answers for you.

HOWEVER

I think that the Catholic Church as an organization is completely out to lunch.

There is no point to defend anything the Pope or Vatican does these days just because you are Catholic and believe in God and Jesus.

You can believe in God, you DON'T have to believe in the corrupted state that is called the Vatican. The Vatican is not acting on behalf of any God these days, only their own self interests and preservation as an antiquated entity.

Once people separate their beliefs from an organization that attempts to form your opinions and beliefs, only then will there be any real reform.

If you truly had no problem with people's individual beliefs, then you would not have posted what you posted. In fact, you seem very troubled that individuals do put faith in the catholic church and the pope and whatever. You may believe that "you" don't have to believe in the the catholic church or organized religion, but evidently because billions of people on the planet do, you are seem quite upset. OTOH, if you truly had no problems with what other people believed, then why make this post? Or put dif

How would "we" know? I'll preface this with saying that I am an atheist. But that doesn't mean that I can't entertain abstract notions such as a legal system of a theocracy. In such a system "we" are not entitled to transparency. The legal system of Vatican does not make Vatican or the Pope accountable to anyone. What it considers crimes become crimes against god or the church or even the supreme leader "on earth". The establishment doesn't exist to accommodate "we the people". It exists to accommoda

How would "we" know? I'll preface this with saying that I am an atheist. But that doesn't mean that I can't entertain abstract notions such as a legal system of a theocracy. In such a system "we" are not entitled to transparency. The legal system of Vatican does not make Vatican or the Pope accountable to anyone. What it considers crimes become crimes against god or the church or even the supreme leader "on earth". The establishment doesn't exist to accommodate "we the people". It exists to accommodate the Pope (yes, the claim is that he is to accommodate god). This is premised on Vatican functioning to enable functioning of the church, but that doesn't matter. As a legal system, it exists solely to fulfill the wishes of the Pope.

Some people might dislike that. I don't really care. Some people dislike families set up with overbearing father-figure influence reducing everyone else in the family to second class because that's how they chose their gender roles. Belonging to this Vatican city state is (at this point in time) completely voluntary. If they sign up for this type of patronage arrangement, why should I care? Why would a non-Catholic care? And why would a catholic expect accountability from the church? Catholicism expect accountability only in the other direction -- to the church (Ok, to "The Church"). The choice to be Catholic is completely voluntary though

The Vatican is an independent state, and the Pope is the head of that state. Leave the religion aspects out of it and view it that way, they have their laws, Britain has their laws, the US has their laws and it is up to each how they want to hold their leaders accountable. For the record, their pope has to follow their own laws and can actually be removed from office, but like a Pope resigning from office, it is a rarity. But their laws allow for it.

While/. is obviously anti-catholic, it is important to remember that the Vatican is an independent state with its own laws. So, while the bashing of all things catholic will undoubtedly continue, this is really a non-news item that should have never made it to/. in the first place, unless Nerds (as in Slashdot: News for Nerds) really care that much about what goes on in the catholic church.

It seems the media is far more concerned about press releases that they can splash all over the front page than they are with pedos getting 12 years in jail. I love how the gist of the summary is all about the punishment being secret, not that they are getting punished. They really only want the gossip, not justice.

Vatican being a sovereign state, it's really none of your business. The Vatican has an astounding total of 450 citizens, i.e. public servants, cardinals, diplomats, and the Swiss Guard. It's also not a Democracy, so even in the unlikely event that you happen to be a concerned Vatican citizen on top of being a slashdotter, it's really none of your business either.

Faith in Christ does not require you to be catholic, there are lots of protestant people. And being catholic only requires faith in God, Christ, wh

They may be trying to correct things going forward with a strong stance on some pain points but it is obvious that the Vatican as an organization does not feel comfortable to risk transparency.

To be fair, the media and our society are not interested in the big picture, or the full truth. The church could be as transparent as glass, and we'd just point a microscope at the dirt and make a giant fuss over it, and anyone who had the slightest conflict with the church would raise these items up at every opportunity.

We might say we want transparency and truth, but we'll collectively crucify (forgive the incidental allusion) anyone who gives it to us.

I don't want to be transparent in a world where the hint of suspicion of a crime can be front page news, and can destroy someones life, while the follow up story that one is completely innocent is a half inch on page E11 after the obituaries, if it makes the news at all, because someone elses live is busily being ruined on the front page.

No in that world, which sadly is this world, I'd rather it not get out at all. Because I know it won't be treated fairly or objectively, or with an eye to the whole story. Just sensationalist nonsense and then move on.

Only a fool would really want transparency.

surely men of the cloth would be much more noble, moral and ethical than the norm.

Because why?

If you really do believe in god, as described in Christianity why do you need the Vatican?

If you truly believe in science why do you need universities? What possible benefit could there be to gained from people who dedicate their lives to research and teaching? Surely one does not need teachers. Full knowledge springs into the minds of those who want it. Or not.

Just as your average layperson has pretty poor grasp of advanced physics they have an equally naive grasp of religion.

Sure we can argue that the Vatican's role has been corrupted perhaps, that it has been subverted by greed and politics, that its purpose is to collect and secure power, rather than enlighten followers with the teachings of their scriptures... sure we can have that conversation. And there'd be plenty of legitimacy to it.

But likewise we can argue that the university is more interested in securing grant money, generating prestige, and enticing ever more profitable foreign students than in imparting any knowlege or skills to the student body which it views largely as an inconvenient necessity in the pursuit of its aforementioned primary purposes.

The church, like the university may not be perfect, but its not as entirely ridiculous as you imply.

While I agree with many of the points you raise I'm not with you on the university analogy or transparency.

If one is to follow religion in it's rather black and white conception of how people should act then priests in general should practically be model citizens, free of sin and so on. Sure the media slanders and accuses but if you are that perfect image of integrity, honesty, caring and compassion would you not shine under scrutiny? -or is it that priests are just as humane as any average Joe and thus a

Uh.. It isn't quite like that. The reason the bible needs explanation is quite simple and obvious, though christians and non christians alike miss this completely. It was written in a different context to the modern world. In order to understand the intent of the author, a scholar is required to have at least a partial understanding of the social, political and historic context of the work, not to mention the cultural and belief systems of the time. Paul of Tarsus did exactly the same thing, explaining/adapting the Jewish worldview to non-jewish christians.

Literal interpretations tend to thoroughly ignore the context above, and therefore miss the intent of the authors. Whether you believe religion is a relic of the past or not, you need to understand it's context to understand it. And that requires plenty of explanation to your average person.

most catholics believe in the teachings of the saints and not just in jesus christ and the god, the rules and things to study come from extra things beyond the basic beliefs and instructions.

you don't really need outside guidance to just being a believer and acting accordingly. it's remarkably simple. but most look for extra rules and clarifications, because those are fun and remove responsibility of thinking yourself, even if it could be fairly easily argued that exactly that was what jesus's character was

Extra rules is the exact opposite of what comes from studying (the new testament at least) in context. When you start to realise the amazingly basic concept that for example, while we have Paul's letters to Timothy, we do not have Timothy's letters to Paul, therefore to take those as standalone instructions and 'rules' is just missing the point. And that is just literary context, not cultural. Cultural changes things even more. Christian history is filled with misunderstandings and people taking things way

Too bad this 'explanation' usually comes from somebody's ass. You don't find in churches the people with the broad knowledge you've mentioned. That made me remember a recent survey which found atheists to have better biblical knowledge than most religious folks.

About dishonesty and insanity, I think the former may help lead to the latter. If you suspend belief in reality to allow belief in the supernatural, you may as well allow other contradictory and inconsistent beliefs. That doesn't seem healthy, imho.

If one is to follow religion in it's rather black and white conception of how people should act

Very little is black and white. Morality is not simple.

then priests in general should practically be model citizens, free of sin and so on [...]

Um. No. Priests are not 'better'. They have merely dedicated their lives to religious teaching and study instead of farming or designing CPUs. They are not 'free from sin'.

It's not me that vowed not to lie

All followers of Christianity are presumably equally bound by the commandments, not just priests.

be celibate

That is a Catholic tradition and is in place as an essentially symbolic sacrifice to show their dedication to the calling; it doesn't make them more 'holy'. If they violate their vow of celibacy... then yes there should be consequences. But the point is that, yes, we should expect that some of them will fail to live up to their vow. They are just people.

They will make mistakes. And some of them will be criminals.

or is it that priests are just as humane as any average Joe

Would you argue that they are less human? Or more? I'd think they are exactly as human as the rest of us.

and thus are not deserving of any special treatment, even by the church

Define "special treatment". If you mean should their criminals be exposed and punished, then yes, absolutely, but I can understand why they would simultaneously seek to mitigate the harm to the church. If prominent executives at a major corporation were to be criminals, the corporation would surely wish to deal with it as discreetly as possible as well.

If I claim to live in a certain way, to serve the public, church etc

Forget the church a moment, and just consider public life in politics. Where your opponents take every thing you say, take it out of context, and twist it around, and then spend more money than you'll make in a lifetime telling everyone else that twisted out of context lie. Eventually, you too will start being gaurded about what you say in public, and will seek to keep large parts of your life private, not because there is anything wrong with what you say or do but simply because your opponents will have that much more to use against you.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

I would welcome transparency.

And you would be hung. Go you!

I don't believe the word of god needs to be "explained" - one might be lead to believe god wrote it wrong. Or the person that wrote it was not divinely inspired as to write it correctly.

Now you are just being hopelessly naive. The texts of the bible are hundreds to thousands of years old. Languages have changed and died. Few today are familiar with the societies that they were written for, or the historical contexts.

Who wrote what, when, where and why they wrote it, who they were writing it for, who they were, why is it in the bible vs other things that are not. The meanings of various names. Right on down to why a particular english word chosen; and which of the english words several definitions aligns best with the original sense of the original text.

Its just plain silly to seriously argue that a guy with a standard modern American high school education is going to have even half a clue about half of what's going on in there.

I believe the only reason people need to explain the word of god is because any literal interpretation would be impossible to live by in today's society.

It would have been impossible to live by literally in any society. It -never- was all neatly wrapped up for a particular point in time.

Anyone who can read can read shakespeare, but its absurd to suggest that everyone who reads it gets as much from it. Cole's notes, and a good teacher can bring more from it than the average person could even imagine. And one could spend and some have

I don't believe the word of god needs to be "explained" - one might be lead to believe god wrote it wrong. Or the person that wrote it was not divinely inspired as to write it correctly.

Don't tell Jesus that. Very often the Gospels say how he had to explain things to the disciples. It could be that god got it write, and man just twisted it all around. I mean look at our civil laws, they are written out black and white in modern language, why do we need a court system? Or look at textbooks in schools or information on the internet, do we even need schools or teachers? Why does anything need to be explained?

Maybe, just maybe, in calling people to a different way of life, it really does take

I believe this move will only further damage the Vatican's reputation.

Anyone who hasn't already kicked them to the curb, after what we know about endemic child molestation and the hierarchy's attempts to cover it up and limit liability, isn't going to be fazed in the least by this.

The continual assertion that the Pope and his Bishops are the only ones who can commune directly with God on our behalf is just one of many reasons non-Catholic Christians have serious problems with the Vatican and it's historical inhabitants.

The continual assertion that the Pope and his Bishops are the only ones who can commune directly with God on our behalf is just one of many reasons non-Catholic Christians have serious problems with the Vatican and it's historical inhabitants.

I've never heard anyone from the Catholic Church make that claim.

You would be correct, the Catholic Church does not hold to that position. Then again,the original poster doesn't mention who makes that assertion. Probably the same types of people who asserted that blacks and women were inferior. But, then, being anti-catholic is the only socially acceptable bigotry that is allowed these days.

You are operating under the assumption that the choices of priests are the result of their sexuality, not practicality. It's easier to convince children to keep quiet on the matter by virtue of being an authority (especially since going through puberty is often awkward and confusing), and males can't get pregnant, which tends to be significant evidence of wrongdoing.

But his crime devastated the Vatican, shattering the confidentiality that typically governs correspondence with the pope.

Let's consider a similar privilege in the US: attorney-client privilege. It's really important that people can trust their communications with their lawyers are confidential, at least if there is any hope to maintain a semblance of justice in the justice system instead of federal prosecutors running roughshod over everyone. Likewi